Talk:Time management/Archives/2012

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Non-encyclopedic content

There seems to be a fair amount of content that's lifted (perhaps plagerized) from a single time management course or book, and is stated as if it were universal to the field. the SMART acronym, "muddling through", etc. are examples. -Harmil 10:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the advice from the article, and pared it down to the definition and external references. -Harmil 10:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

quote reference

Management is "working with and through other people to accomplish the objectives of both the organization and its members."

It would seem this definition comes from somewhere. Where? —Daf 20:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

This would be the definition of the FIELD of management. This is what I taught students in college business programs. It would be possible to manage a set of "things", like machines, without having all that much to do with people. Time management should not necessarily be limited to organizational settings. DCDuring 19:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DCDuring (talk • contribs)

Generations: 1, 3, 4

I noticed that on 31 August 2006 somebody deleted the paragraph "Generation 2". It seems to me comical that now the article lists generations "1, 3 and 4". Is it OK that I will paste there the last version of paragraph "Second generation"? --Pavel Jelinek 09:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Where to place time boxing?

Time boxing is a very useful tool. Where to place this? Kgashok 15:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There's already an article about this here: Time boxing. Is that what you're looking for? --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 16:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I created a "See Also" section and added a link to the Time Boxing article. --Coppertwig 02:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Re the criticism of 4th generation section

I see two problems with this section: (1) it's longer than the section on the method it's criticizing; in fact it's longer than any of the other sections. I feel that for the article as a whole to be properly balanced, this criticism section should be considerably shorter than the section describing the 4th generation method in the first place. (2) I suspect this criticism may not actually come from any reliable published sources but may have been invented by Wikipedia editors. I therefore propose the following: That this section be copied to the talk page and deleted from the article, and if at a later date someone finds citations to back up the statements (i.e. who are the critics in "some critics"?) then some or all of it be copied back into the article, perhaps edited, but always keeping it shorter than the first section on the 4th generation method; so the whole thing would be copied back only if that other section had been expanded. What do people think of this idea?

By the way, here's a criticism of the criticism: The criticism is based on inaccurate evaluations of the relative importance of different tasks. When do the non-important things get done? Never, perhaps; that's the whole point; you get more of the important things done and get fewer of the non-important things done. Once you've decided to build an automobile, then maybe installing the rear-view mirror is quite important and is equally important as installing the engine. You can't legally drive the car without a mirror. Without a mirror it may not be sellable, can't be used, and takes up space; it's about as bad as a car with no engine. So installing the rearview mirror actually is important. Realizing this early on in the project is part of what Steven Covey is trying to teach. (My interpretation.) However, the whole project of building the automobile may be less important than phoning a parent and saying "I love you," or brushing your teeth, and it may have been a mistake to take on the whole project in the first place. That's an even more important part of what he's trying to teach (my interpretation). If something is going to gum up the works later on if it's not done and cause real problems, then it is important. When the relative importance of different tasks is correctly evaluated, then it works well to get the important ones done and not worry too much about missing some of the less important ones. It takes real practice to learn how to set the priorities. It's like learning a language or learning math or learning to drive a car. You can't just quickly start doing it based on a few instructions; you need to experience it in the real world and gradually get better at it. --Coppertwig 02:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I've deleted the following text from the article:

====Criticisms of the Fourth generation====

Some critics ^{[citation needed]} of time management methods consider the whole concept of prioritizing by importance is flawed, since once a project has been taken on, all the work relating to it needs to be done. Questions of importance or non-importance are irrelevant. An illustrative example would be the building of an automobile, where the engine and wheels may be more important than the rear-view mirror and the carpets, but nevertheless a complete automobile would need the rear-view mirror and the carpets just as much as the engine and wheels. The critics would say that Covey correctly notes that, if you always action things on the basis of urgency, non-urgent things are never going to get done. But he fails to note that exactly the same applies to importance - if you always action things on the basis of importance then when do the non-important things get done? If trivial things are allowed to build up, they will gum up the works so effectively that the important work won't get done either.

Once an item that is characterized as unimportant is perceived to be necessary to an important objective, however, its priority should be adjusted to a higher level. Planning cannot be static. As von Moltke is reputed to have said, "Planning is everything. Plans are nothing."

--Coppertwig 04:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this section should be removed and is probably original research. The point that this section ignores is that the whole point of time management is identifying unimportant tasks in order to never do them, because if they would have to be done, they were important. ;-)--Grace E. Dougle 19:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Commercialism

I agree the external sources are commercials, however, removing content and putting comment in the article's mainspace is not correct. --Parker007 23:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but nobody noticed when I removed the commercila links before. The commercial links just went right back in. This commercial spam is destroying the wiki. Are you more concerned about correct form or ending the spam? By being explicit about the commercial links, the worst of them went away and someone besides me took notice. What did you think of the mind tools dot com link? should we discuss this obvious link to a commercial website which is trying to drive up its Google search engine ranking? Here's a bet. There will be a link to Steven C* and his commercial book within hours if not days.--PeterSpev 19:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Original research

This article reads more like a guide to time management than an article 'about' time management.

(username: benandorsqueaks - I'm too lazy to login) 167.127.24.69 20:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed OR template, because many sentences are referenced using inline citations. --Parker007 21:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I restored it as there are only 3 citations in the whole article. I agree with OR being appropriate. Slavlin 22:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Eisenhower method

What about the Eisenhower method? The german Wikipedia has it in this article (see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitmanagement#Eisenhower-Methode) - imho it should get its own page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sebastian Dietrich (talk • contribs) 12:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Re : POSEC METHOD

Any references on where the POSEC METHOD comes from?

I would like to know too. It sound's very interesting. I was looking for something based off of maslows hierarchy a long time ago. I wish there was more info so I could see how it was actually implemented. I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.131.118.170 (talk) 07:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new outline for this article

Below is a DRAFT of an outline for a new version of this article. That means I am volunteering to try. I haven't put too much into this, so I won't be too defensive about criticism, I hope.

Please help me by suggesting first anything missing or unnecessary. If something should be treated somewhere else, then we can modify other articles to fit with our needs (without trashing, of course). Later, we can work on more detail and order later. Also, I am not wedded to any wording in this outline or to this structure. I am concerned with finding authoritative sources that would be consistent with this structure.

A Introduction -A1 Definition -A2 Context --A2a Managerial environment --A2b Spread outside managerial environment -A3 Function of time management

B Related Fields -B1 Executive management -B2 Operations management -B3 Time and motion study -B4 Home economics -B5 Workspace design -B6 Cognitive psychology -B7 Self-improvement/Self-help/Self-management/Self-discipline -B8 Motivational Psychology

C History/Precursors

D Problem to be solved -D1 Efficiency -D2 Effectiveness -D3 Memory -D4 Motivation -D5 Self-discipline

E Technologies used -E1 Before paper -E2 Paper -E3 Electronic

F Systems -F0 Implicit systems: Calendars, notebooks, planners -F1 Lakein,Winston,Mackensie -F2 Hobbs, Smith, Covey -F3 Time Design/GTD -F4 Other contemporary

G Examples/Anecdotes

DCDuring 21:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

First line

Time management is straightforwardly defined as the management of time in order to make the most out of it.[1]

is this not complete and utter crap? does it even need a reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.0.57.154 (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Before you consider the contributions of others to be "utter crap" you should consider that you yourself are talking "utter crap". I do not see justification for using such language in this situation.

Now that you mention it, no. What we could use is a more intelligent definition. Thanks for your insight. DCDuring 11:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not Dave's right, this opening stinks of hijack by evangelical GTDers. 87.114.159.103 (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad I'm not the only one who thought that... and it's possibly the most useless quote I've ever seen. "Time management is not actually the process of manipulating time" - thanks for that, was confused for a second. So I support rewriting it, if anyone thinks they can do it well (I don't). Aceizace (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, replaced not only the first line but the whole introduction. Seems the first sentence has been so heavily edited that it no longer reflects the cited source found in google scholar. So no need to retain it. David Allen's quote doesn't contribute to the definition, so it doesn't belong in the opening paragraph. However it could be included in the body somewhere. The last paragraph in the introduction is also redundant in defining time management (i.e.,...better use of time...decisions about activities that occupy their time...). References to self-awareness and self-help are interesting philosophically, they just don't belong in the introduction. Lamorak (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This article starts by saying "Time management refers to a range of skills, tools, and techniques used to manage time when accomplishing specific tasks, projects and goals."

I would like to inform and educate the person who wrote that line that "time management" being an abstract noun CANNOT refer to tools. It cannot refer to the skills. It also cannot refer to the techniques used to manage time. The frustrating thing is that I tried to correct the blunder and someone undid the edit. Please, if your native tongue is not English language I would like to stress what a dangerous effect this could have on the minds of the younger generation reading this. I would like to use an analogy for those who find it difficult to understand. For example "hunting" refers to chasing and killing animals for meat. Can I pick up a gun and say "hey look, I have 'hunting' in my hand"? The gun is not "hunting". The gun is a gun. It is a tool used to aid hunting. They are two separate entities. How can time management refer to a range of skills, tools and techniques? Someone please help me. This is outrageous.Continentaltide (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Cleaning the definition

I removed the following sentences:

Time management in a broad sense involves both planning and execution. Money can be earned back, however the time once gone is gone. That is what makes time management a really important activity. There is however no agreed and definite way of time management. It depends on the individual person, as how they manage their schedule, and prioritize their activities.
While the label time management cannot predate the widespread use of the word "management" in our sense at the beginning of the 20th century, concerns about the wise use of time have a longer history, reflected in the large number of proverbs concerning time and its use.

Please put it back (prefereably after rephrasing) if you believe something valuable was lost --Nabeth (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have also do some structuring and rephrasing, creating the section Time management in different contexts, in which I have moved Project management, Attention management and Personal knowledge management. I have also rephrased the part about project management (please, reedit it if you believe that something valuable was lost). --Nabeth (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Time management in video games

There is a genre of casual games called time management game. Shouldn't this be included in the article? RocketMaster (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

THE LOSES WE HAVE IN OUR PERSONAL LIFE SHOWS THE IMPORNTANCE OF TIME MANAGEMENT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.246.92.170 (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)